1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 21, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired a Class-I ordinary driver’s license (B) of the ordinary motor vehicle on December 21, 2009, and around 01:50 on January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 0.110% in blood alcohol level, and the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol to drive a Category-C truck up to approximately 25 km in front of the Han-dong Highway Seoul Road at the time of the Gyeonggi Sung-nam-dong Road.

B. Accordingly, on January 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on March 23, 2016, but was dismissed on May 10, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle is essential to drive as a driver who supplies frozen tower meat; (b) when the driver’s license is revoked, the Plaintiff would lose his occupation and his family’s livelihood is difficult; and (c) the Plaintiff did not have any history of drinking for seven years; and (d) there was no traffic accident or penalty points.

B. The need to strictly observe traffic regulations is increasing due to the rapid increase of motor vehicles today, the number of driver's licenses of motor vehicles is issued in large quantities, and traffic conditions are congested on the day, and in particular, traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequently frequent and the results are harsh, so it is very important for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving. Therefore, in revocation of driver's licenses on the grounds of drinking driving on the grounds of drinking driving, unlike revocation of the general beneficial administrative act, the general preventive aspect should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation, and it should be prevented than the disadvantage of the party who will suffer from the revocation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17021, Dec. 27, 2007).